- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-238/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — ‘Sātiņi-S’ SIA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 17 — Right to property — Directive 2009/147/EC — Compensation for the damage caused to aquaculture by protected wild birds in a Natura 2000 area — Compensation less than the damage actually suffered — Article 107(1) TFEU — State aid — Concept of ‘advantage’ — Conditions — Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 — De minimis rule)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0238
62020CA0238
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 119/11
(Case C-238/20)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 17 - Right to property - Directive 2009/147/EC - Compensation for the damage caused to aquaculture by protected wild birds in a Natura 2000 area - Compensation less than the damage actually suffered - Article 107(1) TFEU - State aid - Concept of ‘advantage’ - Conditions - Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 - De minimis rule)
(2022/C 119/14)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ‘Sātiņi-S’ SIA
Intervening party: Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding the compensation granted by a Member State for the losses suffered by an economic operator as a result of the protective measures applicable in a Natura 2000 area under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds being significantly less than the damage actually incurred by that operator;
2.Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that compensation granted by a Member State for the losses suffered by an economic operator as a result of the protective measures applicable in a Natura 2000 network area under Directive 2009/147 confers an advantage capable of constituting ‘State aid’ for the purposes of that provision, where the other conditions relating to such a classification are satisfied;
3.Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 of 27 June 2014 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] to de minimis aid in the fishery and aquaculture sector must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where the compensation such as that described in point 2 of this operative part fulfils the conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU, the de minimis ceiling of EUR 30 000, provided for in that Article 3(2) of Regulation No 717/2014, is applicable to that compensation.
(1) OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.